• Al,

    http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns /76964/Main-Issue-For-Clinton%5C%5Cs-Wit hdrawal-Appears-To-Be-The-Money.htm

    I've also seen this amount in the foreign press

  • I hear it is now +/- $40M. Every time she mentions her website, all I can hear is send me money, give me money, pay my campaign debts. I hear her supporters are sending in $89 in honor of her mother's birthday tomorrow.

  • you beat me to it...

  • You just proved my point.

  • Student Guy, kudos to the Wonk.
    I mean give me a break, and they have waited how long to bring this tape out in the open....Flowbee is as bad as Larry Sinclair with hit baiting for his site.
    The most interesting point in the VF article was that BC does not have a clue about You Tube.
    We are seeing a change in consciousness that will dictate how we govern. The millennium generation is in charge of our destiny.
  • on a comment on Reflections on the RBC outcome over 6 years ago

    No one complained when the DNC stripped FL and MI of their delegates last year. Not one single peep. FL and MI violated the DNC rules. If voters from these states felt disenfranchised, they should have voiced their concerns at the time of disenfranchisement. The actual act of moving the primary was a political move by state politicans. If you are disenfranchised, your best recourse is to vent your anger with the politicans that allowed this to happen not the DNC. Protests and complaints only occurred after one candidate, who was losing, wanted to play the last card she had. This is manipulation, don't give in to it. The decision of the RBC, although perhaps flawed, was a form of resolution. This is a democracy and we have compromises.

  • on a comment on Overnight Thread over 6 years ago
    Bill Clinton won in 1992 because he agressively went into the caucus states. Hillary went for the big states. By March of this year, Obama had already won the primary.  All the numbers were in his favor. The DNC primary is based on delegates. Again, this was why Bill Clinton won in 1992.  Up till the end of March, Hillary was in policy wonk monde.  She suddenly switched her personna. She started to pander....gas tax holiday, used to shoot guns, friend of the working class.  This gave her a burst. But it was too late. In her desperation, her campaign aggressively went after Obama. In her words, the kitchen sink. It did not stick. What you are seeing as sexism, or baised in the media, is the revulsion on the part of all who had put the Clintons as leaders in the Democratic party resort to foolish behavior.
    I do not think for a minute that Hillary's repeated statements of Robert Kennedy's campaign have anything to do with the current situation solely because the California primary was held in June in 1968. Hillary's continually shifting metrics, big states, popular vote, electoral map, seem desperate and grasping. Do you not wonder why Biden, Dodd, Kennedy, Edwards, Richardson, Carter, leaders in the party, have cast their vote with Obama is he is indeed an empty suit? Or are they too deluded by an empty suit.
  • on a comment on I'm Not Naive over 6 years ago

    You have an extremely articulate women who parsed her words, calculates her sentences, is nuanced in her speech. She knows what she is saying. She said what she said. She said what she said for a reason. She has said what she said many times now. Do you get her intent? She may deny her intent, but we have have heard her speech and have gotten what she intends to convey. There is no denying the underlying content.

  • on a comment on I'm Not Naive over 6 years ago

    Descarte would not believe you.

  • It is also the money. I believe that all the rhetoric coming this way from Hillary is because she is broke and needs to draw the line in the sand now.
    The "take it to the convention" crap is just that. But I will not dare her not to so.
    Obama sees  a new electoral map that takes into account the millenium generation that are post-racial and post-feminists; shifting demographics of the green meme to suburban centers; and red states that he has won in the primary that can be turned blue. There is the sense that we are redrawing the old political landscape as we speak.
  • comment on a post The Realignment We've Been Waiting For over 6 years ago
    Recent reports are that Bill Clinton is pushing hard for Hillary as VP. I can only wonder if Hillary has been rejected by Obama as VP and this why she is going nuclear. She says "I have been vetted", but the Clintons-and we must take both together-have way too much negative baggage for a winning ticket.
    Obama would like to take cross-over Republicans who are dissatisfied with Bush; but Republicans are anxious for her to run because they believe they can beat her.
    I think that there are other options that could balance the ticket and appeal to the swing states. Definately not a Senator, perhaps Governor.
    Also, because of the "kitchen sink", many Obama supporters would have a hard time accepting Hillary and may not want fund an Obama/Clinton ticket.
    Much depends on what happends after the RBC meet at the end of the month: Hillary may want to go all the way to the convention; fences may be mended by the end of August; or, then again, pigs may fly.
  • I have no worst...Student Guy. We have read all the vitrolic statements and inflammatory remarks.
    Hillary is nothing short of a pyric victory wanting to happening. The Clintons are olde school, and not happening. I do not believe that the party elders wish this to happen....not in a New York minute. The "take it to the convention" rhetoric is because She was denied. I will not be intimidated by the cause of feminism in a post-feminist age. I will not be intimidated by race in a post-racial age.
    For the Clintons it is about power. We are not about power, we are about awareness and consciousness. We need to transcend the "isms" in order to fix what is inherently wrong in our society. And so we go...
  • on a comment on Next Up: MI & FL over 6 years ago

    This is a game to the Clintons. They knew the rules of the game- Bill Clinton actually won playing those rules, i.e., he won the caucus states and gained the nomination. For some reason they did not follow that path and found themselves losing after Super Tuesday. They threw the kitchen sink, but the detritus did not stick. So then Hillary changed her persona. She abandoned the the policy wonk retoric because it could not compete with the message of Obama. Her new message of bitter, guns and pandering appealed to the lowest common denominator and it started to win her votes. Not enough votes, but she did start to win. But then the super delegates starting go to Obama. Then they changed the metric...count the popular vote. Count ALL the votes even though the DNC rules are delegate driven, but heck its a game. Now its on to the convention, coerce pledged delegates away from Obama, reinstate FL and MI and, bingo, you have a winner.

    In the game it is all about winning and the Clintons want to win. They do not care if they are dividing the party. Her supports are convinced that Obama is a sexist because he dusted off his shoulders in one speech he made and that he he played the race card with Bill Clinton in NC. A house divided.

    Hillary has huge debts and a fragile infrastructure in place within the states making her ability to compete in the general election problematic. It appears she would rather spend all her time, energy and expenses to try and pull off a pyric victory. Will she be equipped to compete after the convention in the general election?  

    Her course of action right now is not logical, so the question is why? Why do they want to win at our expense? I have no answer, only pity.

  • they are called hillarybots.

  • was used for the confetti after her win in West Virginia.


Advertise Blogads